Menu

Disinvitations of U commence speakers rise dramatically over 15 years

FIRE’s research demonstrates not just an increase in disinvitation incidents, but also an increase in the number of successful disinvitations. Not only have the absolute numbers of successful disinvitations increased, but since 2000, the rate of successes has increased slightly, but consistently. In the first six years of the 2000s, the disinvitation success rate hovered at approximately 38%. Over the past six years, the disinvitation success rate has climbed to approximately 44%.

Successful disinvitations take three different forms: a formal revocation of the invitation, a withdrawal by the speaker, and the “heckler’s veto.” The past 2.5 years, 2012–2014, have seen the greatest number of successful disinvitations, totaling 26. Nineteen of these took the form of formal disinvitations, such as in the case of Dustin Lance Black at Pasadena City College,[1] and six were in the form of speaker withdrawals in response to student or faculty demands, such as Christine Lagarde at Smith College and Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University. Over the past 15 years, formal disinvitation has been the most common method by which speakers are prevented from speaking on campus, with 53 speakers having their invitations rescinded. But the other numbers are troubling as well. Since 2000, 17 speakers have chosen to withdraw in response to student and/or faculty demands, and 12 speakers’ presentations have been so significantly disrupted that they were effectively disinvited. More.

Disinvitation incidents occurred in remarkably even numbers among public colleges and universities (68), private secular institutions (59), and private religious institutions (65). The split between the types of institutions is surprisingly close, revealing a systemic problem—some students and faculty at colleges and universities of all types appear increasingly unwilling to allow those with whom they disagree to speak and advocate for their position on campus. More.

We are funding these twit totalitarians because the police powers of the government are used to separate us from our money, via taxation, which is then given to academic institutions that tolerate or even promote such misbehavior by their faculties and students. And even conservative governments are intimidated by the apparent power of the intelligentsia to shape elite opinion; hence, they do not take any steps to “starve the beast.” (Plus, of course, many “conservative” politicians hold us rank-and-file yokels in barely disguised contempt . . . much like Medieval knights regarded the peasants in the infantry levies of feudal armies.)